The natural emissions eclipse anything man sends up into the atmosphere.

Even with all the shut downs there are hardly any differences because natural CO2 eclipses man's emissions.



https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Jasin wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 9:50am:


Today we have about 416 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

What the con artists don't tell you is that it is still one of the lowest atmospheric CO2 levels in our recorded history.

We have had as much as 7000ppm and the Earth's sinks took care of it.

IMO deforestation is the worst thing that can happen for atmospheric CO2 levels, natural and man made.

Jasin wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 10:23am:


Do you understand the percentage of atmospheric CO2 these people want to mitigate.....?

The elite want to create a cash cow on the stock exchange so they can create money out of nothing, like they have been doing for the last 40 odd years or so.

Do you know the CO2 levels in a submarine.....?!

Jasin wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 10:37am:


Air is composed of

1. 78% Nitrogen

2. 21% oxygen

3. 1% the rest

BUT

If you breathe pure oxygen or pure nitrogen both will be deadly.

Why should CO2 be any different...?

The_Barnacle wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 11:06am:


In your opinion................

Ajax wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 9:56am:


You're right, we have nothing to worry about. All we have to do is survive on a hothouse Earth for a few millennia while that carbon gets buried again.

It'll be an adventure, like living in Asimov's Caves of Steel!

Captain Nemo wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 12:22pm:



CO2 is not pollution it is plant food.

What is the ideal, in your view, level of CO2?

At what level have humans existed? With references?

Robot wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 12:12pm:



What temperatures is this supposed hothouse earth? Especially given temperature increase decreases as CO2 increases logarithmically.

Given we had "global cooling" from the fifties to the seventies at a time of increasing CO2 - how do you explain that? The "climate scientists seance-tists" tell us natural variation can't be the reason, because it can't be the reason now.

Captain Nemo wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 2:05pm:



That's only in the Antarctic Ice Cores petal.

For Greenland Ice Core (GRIP) -

"CO2  record  between  40  and  8 kyr  B.P.  from  the
Greenland  Ice  Core  Project  ice core "

" We present CO2 measurements performed on an ice core from central Greenland, drilled during the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP). This CO2 profile from GRIP confirms the most prominent CO2 increase from the LGM,  with a mean concentration of 200 ppmv, to the early Holocene with concentrations between 290 and 310 ppmv. Some structures of the new CO2 record are similar to those previously obtained from the Dye 3 ice core (Greenland), which indicated a dilemma between Greenland and Antarctic CO2 records [Oeschger et al., 1988]. Both Greenland cores show high CO2 values for rather mild climatic periods during the last glaciation, whereas CO2 records from Antarctica do not show such high CO2 variations during the glaciation and, furthermore, the CO2 values in the early Holocene are about 20-30 ppmv higher in the GRIP  record than  in  Antarctic  records.  There  is  some  evidence  that  the  difference  could  be due to chemical reactions between impurities in the ice leading to an increase of the CO2 concentration under certain conditions. If in situ processes can change the CO2 concentration in the air  bubbles, the question arises about how reliably do CO2 records from ice cores reflect the atmospheric composition at the time of ice formation."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/97JC00182

I believe between 8K and 40K years is shorter than 800K years.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 2:51pm:


Well they're not really these days as Kelp have, like Forests, etc - been decimated. Tasmanian Bull kelp is almost gone in just a few decades.
Aquatic plants and species produce more oxygen - than land plants.
80% less oxygen production by planet.
80% increase in CO2 production by humans.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 2:10pm:


You'll need:
- a number for CO2 concentration (Ajax says 7000ppm)
- a number for climate sensitivity
- a calculator

Have fun! Let us know what you come up with!

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 2:10pm:


"I don't believe scientific evidence but provide me with answers based on scientific evidence."

Robot wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 3:34pm:


It's your claim for a hothouse earth you do the maths.

Robot wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 3:34pm:



Poor petal. That's what they say. But logic says both states can't be right. But then logic is not your strong point.

Jasin wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 3:09pm:


Increased toxicity? Perhaps you can explain a longer life expectancy on the back of this increased toxicity.

Do you have any long term (100 Year) ozone figures for us? Just for comparison.

Re CO2 scrubbers - so you disbelieve the greening of the planet shown by satellites?

Not only above 400 PPM atmospheric CO₂ concentration following the industrial revolution, but the spike happening about 1,000 times faster than ice-core data indicates about previous increases of a natural type. 

Is this natural or Human induced?



Anyone?




...





Anyone?







....


It is Human induced.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 3:43pm:


"It's too hard. You do it." 

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 3:43pm:


You're claiming that human activity can't cause the climate to cool while CO2 levels are increasing?

Robot wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 4:01pm:


For you it is.

Robot wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 4:01pm:



No petal. Please learn to read. But have you heard of the new coolant for air conditioners? R744.

As it seems that you are incredibly lazy Lee ...

You can start here:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/


or ....

Google "Atmospheric CO₂ concentration history".

Approx. 8,790,000 results show up.

Knock yourself out. 

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 4:10pm:


Look, I can sympathise. Maybe you lost your crayons; maybe you don't have any room left on your wall to write on. How about I meet you halfway: you give me a number for climate sensitivity that you believe to be accurate, and I'll work it out the temperature increase for you. Or maybe you don't believe any number for climate sensitivity is accurate? If so then perhaps it's best to just come out and say so.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 4:10pm:


Funny that you should mention coolants. 

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 4:33pm:


7000ppm is 415ppm (current level) x 2^4.076. 4.076 x 1.2°C is 4.89°C.

I knew you were going to low-ball me on the climate sensitivity number, which is why I asked you.  I'd ask you for your source, but since you don't believe scientific evidence, we can be sure it won't stand up to scrutiny.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 5:15pm:


So to get 1.2°C, you just picked a number between 0.7°C and 5.3°C? 

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 5:15pm:




All the clues you need are right here in this thread.

I remember a Brewer in Australia who used the fermentation via an Algae Filter created 'Oxygen'.

We need to scrub the atmosphere clean, while also creating more oxygen. 42% Oxygen would do wonders for this world.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 5:49pm:


So to get 1.2°C, you just picked a number between 0.7°C and 1.66°C?

Very rigor! Much science! Wow!

Robot wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 6:03pm:



So what happened on the way to the forum petal. Lose your mojo? Still no ECS and reference from you. Not even close to science are you?

Robot wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 6:24pm:


Seems I was wrong. Mmauritsen was one of your outliers (that is in favour of a high ECS).

"An additional issue regarding climate model derived values of ECS was raised by recent paper by Mauritsen et al. (2019). An intermediate version of the MPI-ESM1.2 global climate model produced an ECS value of ~ 7 oC, caused by the parameterization of low-level clouds in the tropics. Since this model version produced substantially more warming than observed in the historical period, this model version was rejected and  model cloud parameters were adjusted to target a value of ECS closer to 3 oC, resulting in a final ECS value of 2.77 oC. The strategy employed by Mauritsen et al. (2019) raises the issue as to what extent climate model-derived ECS values are truly emergent, rather than a result of tuning that explicitly or implicitly considers the value of ECS and the match of the model simulations with the historical temperature record."

Source Curry.

BTW- you still haven't got back to us on YOUR view of ECS.

Captain Nemo wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 9:51pm:



ohh repetition.

Remember what was said about the smoothing?

"Ice core records are commonly used to infer information about past variability of CO2 fluxes. Because of processes involved in enclosing this air in ice, ice core records are a smoothed representation of the actual past atmospheric variations. As such, there is a limit to how much information ice core measurements can contain about flux variability on short timescales.  "

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003JD003562

Captain Nemo wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 9:51pm:



That is only the ice core data with its attendant smoothing. Plant stomata datasuggests otherwise.




Fig 2.

Reconstructed CO2 concentrations for the time interval between ≈8,700 and ≈6,800 calendar years B.P. based on CO2 extracted from air in Antarctic ice of Taylor Dome (left curve; ref. 2; raw data available via www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/taylor.html) and SI data for fossil B. pendula and B. pubescens from Lake Lille Gribsø, Denmark (right curve; see Table 1). The arrows indicate accelerator mass spectrometry 14C chronologies used for temporal control (Table 1). The shaded time interval corresponds to the 8.2-ka-B.P. cooling event (3–12). Quantification of mean CO2 concentrations is based on the rate of historical CO2 responsiveness of the European tree birches (Fig. 1); ±1σ CO2 estimates are derived from the standard deviation of the SI mean values.

Source: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002 September 17: 99 (19) 12011 -12014.

See what happens to the raw data when you smooth it compared to other proxy data.? That is why it is called "smoothing".

Captain Nemo wrote on May 18^th, 2020 at 12:04pm:

laughing at you is not attention seeking dopey

This wasn't in the modelling......

Jasin wrote on Nov 17^th, 2023 at 7:28pm:


So seeing as submariners can work at 10,000 CO2 ppm, How much do we need to adapt to 420?

Jasin wrote on Nov 17^th, 2023 at 7:28pm:


The proxy data doesn't support that. CO2 increased dramatically just before the ice age onsets.

Jasin wrote on Nov 17^th, 2023 at 7:28pm:


Do you have a link for that?

Jasin wrote on Nov 17^th, 2023 at 7:28pm:


Phyoplankton is doing really well in the polar regions. But perhaps you can cite a paper?

Jasin wrote on Nov 17^th, 2023 at 7:28pm:


Not if they keep sonar bombing for offshore windfarms.

Jasin wrote on Nov 17^th, 2023 at 7:43pm:


So you don't like science.

Here's the Topic.
https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1698385705

Science? You sound like an Atheist who thinks Science is a non-Religious thing.
Funny, considering 'Writing' is a Science, as was Bronze Age metallurgy.

Your Science ego snobbery is noted Lee.
Do you sip cafe latte's, where black skivvies, have a hipster beard and shaved head and just bum around cafes in Potts Point?